Aryan95614/aerograph-asrs huggingface dataset:
Aircraft: CITATION V/ULTRA/ENCORE (C560)
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

Aircraft X; wad descended to 3;000 FT and was slowed to 170 KTS and issued traffic to follow at 12 o'clock and 4 miles a B737 descending out of 2;000 FT; the pilot of Aircraft X readback; 'traffic in sight descending to 2;000 FT.' I held back the visual approach clearance knowing the aircraft had not passed the obstruction ahead who's MVA was 3;000 FT. I observed the aircraft descending through 2;300 FT and issued a low altitude alert and an immediate climb to 3;000 FT. The aircraft saw the obstruction and climbed back up to 3;000 FT. I would not have told him the altitude of the traffic; if I thought it would have confused the pilot into thinking that was his altitude. TRACON Controller described a below MVA event when an IFR aircraft was issued the latitude of traffic and interpreted same as an assigned altitude starting a descent.
Aircraft: MUSTANG (P51)
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC

We were returning from a local flight. We were using Runway XXL & R which is not our normal pattern. Therefore; instead of flying closer to the airport; we were maneuvering to a XX landing pattern. We had called the tower 15 miles Southeast to obtain a clearance to enter the D space. We were given a squawk code and told by the tower operator we were observed now at 8 miles Southeast and told to 'fly present heading to avoid traffic'. We were doing so and a minute or two later saw what appeared to be Aircraft Y at our 12:00 position lightly lower and noticed a rapid close rate. He initiated a rapid turn to his left; east. We turned rapidly to our left; west; and avoided contact. The tower called at about that time and instructed us to dive immediately. It was a close call. The tower asked me to call him after we landed. We discussed the event from the point at which he gave us the beacon code. I am not sure if he was talking to Aircraft Y traffic or not. We were able to see and avoid the traffic so it worked out. The operator and I agreed we were closer than we would have liked to be. P51 pilot reported a NMAC enroute to the airport.
Aircraft: CHALLENGER 605
Phase of flight: Landing
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict

During our approach to Runway 31L into BFI we received a TCAS RA; initially to; 'level off' and then 'climb'. We subsequently complied with the RA and then executed a missed approach.Approaching the airport from the south and west we were left on a fairly high left base to final in good visual conditions. While the approach was higher than normal we were stabilized well above 1;000 feet and use of speed brakes was not required. After confirming that we had the airport in sight with SEA Tracon; they subsequently cleared us for a visual approach to Runway 31L. We were given instructions to contact BFI tower. During the transition from approach to tower both the PM and myself noticed traffic ahead and to our left. I'm pretty sure the aircraft was slightly above us or at our same altitude when I initially noticed him. After checking in with BFI tower we were given a traffic point out and told that this aircraft; whose position was at our same altitude and west of us; was going to be landing on Runway 31R. At this point I started wondering how this was going to work out. Around the same time I started to doubt the success of this approach we received a RA to; 'level off.' We were just inside the outer marker descending on the glide path. After responding to the RA; first a level off command then a climb command; we executed a missed approach. I started to climb out expecting more instruction from the tower on our missed approach instructions. At this point the BFI tower controller told us to execute the; 'published missed approach procedure;' this was strange because we were cleared for a visual approach. Thinking the controller wanted us to execute the published missed approach off of Runway 31L ILS; this is how I proceeded. Somewhere around 3;000 feet the tower said he wanted us on the published missed approach procedure; 2;100 feet. To my knowledge there is no published missed approach altitude or procedure for the visual approach to Runway 31L in BFI. The only 2;100 restriction I know of is the departure procedure off of 31L; NEEDLE NINE.I don't think there is any reason to revisit our frustration with the TCAS issues in BFI. That said the Tower Controller in this situation seemed to have little to no situational awareness. Trying to cross traffic from left-to-right and underneath our path while descending on the glide path? The controller should have had us or the C-172 complete a 270 degree turn to rejoin the final. The final area of frustration concerning this approach; the expectation that we complete a published missed approach procedure that doesn't exist. If the controller wanted us at a specific altitude he should have just cleared us to the altitude; i.e. climb to 2;100 feet CL605 Captain on a visual approach to Runway 31L at BFI is informed of C172 traffic on a left base for Runway 31R. A TCAS RA is received and the reporter initiates a go around. The Tower instructs to fly the published missed approach but actually intended that the flight fly runway heading and climb to 2;100 feet.
Aircraft: EMBRAER PHENOM 300
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC

During descent into SDL; we were under the control of Phoenix approach on vectors. We were given a heading of 040 and descent to 6;000. We were advised of a Cessna flying VFR under the control of approach and that it was on a converging course. The plane was told to level at 5;500 feet. At this time the autopilot was on and I was looking at the TCAS and outside while the pilot flying was looking outside and monitoring the autopilot. The Cessna did not level at 5;500 and continued to climb. TCAS promptly gave a traffic advisory followed by a resolution advisory which required us to descend from 6;000 feet and ended up at 5;200 when we were given a 'clear of conflict' advisory. In the process I told approach we were responding to an RA. After leveling at 5;200 I asked what altitude they would like us to maintain (as it was time to descend). We were then cleared direct to the field; maintain 5;000; and contact another approach frequency. We continued to destination without any other issues. The Cessna was very close and I never saw the aircraft until it was within 100 feet horizontally at our altitude. I saw the aircraft when responding to the descend RA. Without TCAS we may have had a different outcome. The Cessna blew the clearance; not the controller. Phenom 300 Captain experienced a TCAS RA and NMAC at 6000 feet during vectors for approach. A VFR Cessna climbing to 5500 feet with the same Controller had continued to climb resulting in evasive action and a NMAC.
Aircraft: B777
Phase of flight: Taxi
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance

This is the third of the last six aircraft that I've flown to exhibit this fault. If the FMC generated Gross Weight is deleted from the ACARS Takeoff Date Request Page during preflight; for example; fueling not complete; to receive Planned Takeoff Data Message; then the FMC generated Gross Weight (the actual aircraft weight after final zero fuel weight is uplinked) never repopulates to the ACARS Takeoff Data Request page. This causes the final Takeoff Data uplinked to be the sum of final ZFW (Zero Fuel Weight) and Planned Takeoff Fuel; a number which; in my experience; seldom if ever is the actual aircraft weight at takeoff. On this flight the FMC generated Gross Weight after final ZFW uplink was 629.4. The ACARS Takeoff Data Request page returned performance numbers for a weight of 627.7 (the sum of the final ZFW and OFP planned takeoff fuel. The actual aircraft weight at throttle advance was 628.4. Had we not caught this error; we would have departed using invalid performance data.When we manually entered the FMC generated Gross Weight on to the ACARS Takeoff Data Request page; proper performance data resulted but the weight entered was not dynamic. It never changed.Until whatever change was made to these aircraft's software the FMC generated Gross Weight; when available; always populated to the ACARS Takeoff Data Request page and was dynamic. If deleted; the FMC generated Gross Weight would have repopulated the next time you opened the Takeoff Data Request page and it would always reflect current aircraft weight. B777 Captain reported under certain circumstances entering weight data for departure will give inaccurate aircraft weights.
Aircraft: SAIL PLANE
Phase of flight: Landing
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation

Glider landing Area is not properly maintained by Airport management. Grass is overgrown and small bushes are [growing]. In the case of a crosswind; a slight wing drop could generate a dangerous Ground-loop both during Aero-Tow and landing phases. Sail Plane Pilot reported the glider landing area runway at the 3J1 airport is in disrepair. Growing vegetation on runway could be a hazard for landing aircraft.
Aircraft: C172
Phase of flight: Parked
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR

I am a Flight Instructor at a university; upon the start of a new semester we received our new students. I began checking documents and TSA currencies of all my new students. I received my first international student and was new to the restrictions and requirements of the alien TSA. [We use a] program to monitor student currencies and hard stops are placed in the computer to prevent us from flying when anything has expired. When looking in [the system; a student's] alien TSA was not going to expire until the end of [the next month]. Thinking the currency was still valid we went on his first flight in the Instrument course. It was not until after the flight that I realized that the notes within the currency stated the currency was only valid for his prior flight commercial course and that the alien TSA was not valid for the instrument course. I believe the cause of the problem was not being familiar with the alien TSA as much as I should have been as it is my responsibility as a CFI; to prevent a reoccurrence I have educated myself on the alien TSA process and [the university] will not assign any instructor until the student has already gone through the TSA process fully before getting an instructor and starting the new course. A Flight Instructor reported a misunderstanding with the alien TSA requirements related to an international student beginning an instrument course when only approved for a commercial course.
Aircraft: COMMERCIAL FIXED WING
Phase of flight: Initial Approach
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

As PM; the Captain and I were nearing BERBN intersection on the COKTL 1 Arrival into LAS. After receiving the ATIS for LAS; and before beginning the descent on the COKTL 1 Arrival; the Captain briefed the COKTL 1 Arrival; along with the visual approach; backed up with the ILS to Runway 26L. Conditions at the time were VMC DAY (15;000' few/10SM vis). Prior to reaching BERBN intersection; Approach Control asked us if we had the ILS loaded. I looked over to the Captain and we both nodded; at which time I stated that we did indeed have the ILS 26L LAS loaded into the FMC (from the direction of PRINO intersection). The Approach Controller cleared us to fly the ILS 26L with a clearance to cross BERBN at or above 7;000 feet MSL. I then queried the Approach Controller about whether or not they would like me to call our base leg for Runway 26L. The Controller replied that our base leg would be visible on their radar; and that a call was not necessary. Not realizing that there was INDEED a transition from the BERBN intersection to HUXAR on the ILS 26L; we proceeded turn north whilst descending to intercept the Runway 26L localizer just outside of RELIN intersection (D7.2 IRLE) Runway 26L.Shortly thereafter; we were told by the Approach Controller that we had initiated the turn too soon; and we were given a heading to the East in order to avoid traffic (other carrier) that was already established on final for Runway 26L. We did receive a TCAS TA (no RA); and after completing the turn to the East; the TCAS TA was resolved. After the turn to the East; and with proper separation between our aircraft and Aircraft Y; Approach Control vectored us back to the north to join the localizer and clear us for the visual to LAS Runway 26L. We were then handed-off to LAS Tower. Landing was uneventful. After landing; we were provided a phone number to call LAS TRACON. The COKTL 1 Arrival and the latest ILS 26L charts for LAS are dated (date). I can tell you that I was certainly not familiar; nor had I ever been assigned the ILS 26L from the COKTL 1 Approach (I wasn't even aware that there was a transition from BERBN intersection; as that transition is located on the new ILS 26L Approach chart). My apologies to the LAS Approach Controller for our misunderstanding.As an added measure; I would prefer to see more information added to the COKTL 1 Arrival; like a ball note referring Pilots to the BERBN transition on the ILS 26L LAS. An added note within our company pages may help bring attention to this transition as well. Air Carrier First Officer reported a heading deviation caused by a new and unfamiliar approach procedure for LAS airport.
Aircraft: COMMERCIAL FIXED WING
Phase of flight: Parked
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation

I was assigned flight number X to ZZZZ. I have a lot going on that day with bad weather snow wet and slippery condition; I thought I loaded the fifteen (15) bags around the dangerous goods. Not until after pushing the flight load planner notify me of not having the fifteen (15) bags around. Ground employee reported inadvertently did not load the required 15 bags around the Hazmat cargo.
Aircraft: BONANZA 35
Phase of flight: Takeoff / Launch
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Runway

I was preparing to depart for a local VFR personal flight alone. Good weather; no substantial crosswind. Pre-flight and checklists complete. Lined up on runway-final checks done. Aligned on center line. Gradually opened throttle and began takeoff roll. Engine sounded fine; fuel flow; MP fine. It did not feel as though the aircraft was accelerating and gaining speed as quickly as usual. I was concerned that I may have been inadvertently still applying slight pressure to toe brakes. Both feet on pedals; right rudder pedal more depressed than Left to compensate for P factor. Tried to barely remove some pressure from both rudder pedals. Within a split second the aircraft veered sharply left; perhaps 30 degrees or more. I was not moving fast enough to fly; but too fast to make it stop straight quickly. I quickly pulled the throttle fully back; saw the edge of runway rapidly approaching. Nose lifted to avoid obstacles; stall horn sounded; perhaps mains came off a bit. Felt plane hit ground wheels first; bounced once; stall horn sounding; then a firm thud to ground-rolled to a gradual stop in high grass between runway and taxiway. No smell of smoke; I felt ok; just shaken. Shut down engine and all electrics quickly; mags off; key removed. Evacuated onto wing and stepped to ground.I think when I tried to release some pressure on pedals; I let off too much from the right rudder pedal. Engine was almost at full throttle. P factor pushed it hard left and toward non-runway surface. I was alert; well rested; comfortable; properly positioned and secured in cockpit. Plane was operating normally-in my experience with it. I believe I let off R rudder pressure too much. Maybe I should have pulled throttle back the instant I thought I wasn't gaining speed quickly enough. Bonanza 35 pilot reported a runway excursion during takeoff roll.
Aircraft: SKYLANE 182/RG TURBO SKYLANE/RG
Phase of flight: Takeoff / Launch
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway

Demonstration of soft field takeoff. Excessive nose high and light crosswind resulted in loss of directional control causing aircraft to drift to left side of runway on lift off striking runway light and taking corrective action lowering wing cause left wing tip to contact grass and rebound right wing tip to pavement correcting back onto runway. Keep less back pressure on yoke. Pilot exercised soft field takeoff. While adding full power with nose high pitch attitude; pilot was unable to maintain directional control of aircraft. As aircraft exited left side of runway; as it was redirected to the right the left wingtip contacted the grass. The aircraft swerved to the right; the right wingtip scraped the runway; the aircraft exited the right side of the runway and came to a stop. The aircraft contacted a runway light; denting the antennae and scraped the underside of the horizontal stabilizer. A C182 flight instructor and trainee reported a loss of control and runway excursion during a soft field takeoff due to excessive elevator input.
Aircraft: ANY UNKNOWN OR UNLISTED AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER
Phase of flight: unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation

ADSB/GPS Outage in the Denver Metro area. At around XA:00Z D01 notified ZZZ1 that there are GPS (to include ADSB) anomalies within 50 miles of Denver. We immediately started broadcasting this on the ATIS. As traffic has picked up today (still relatively slow for ZZZ1); we've had numerous reports of aircraft losing ADSB; and numerous reports of aircraft losing GPS. We also lost all ADSB on our side for approximately an hour. This is problematic for our operation. Since the implementation of ADSB; we have had many controllers train and certify using this feature. I am currently the only controller on shift that certified prior to ADSB. If our traffic was moderate it would be a safety concern; especially during a VFR pop up arrival rush. As for the GPS outages; most of the aircraft reported losing their GPS on finals from as far out as 15 miles to within 1 mile final. Luckily today is VFR. However; this time of year through April are our heaviest precipitation months. Often strong frontal patterns move in quickly; with last minute changes in forecast. We provide service for pilots with little experience; and though today is VFR; many general aviation aircraft have returned to base due to GPS outages. We have logged aircraft reporting issues in our facility log. We currently have 11 reports. There are many that have inquired about outages; but did not report an outage themselves. We are not seeing all aircraft ADSB on our side. When we lose their ADSB in the pattern; we are full stopping them to keep the operation safe. We also have the concern for the aircraft that are losing their ADSB while flying under the Bravo airspace. I am simply passing along safety information. I have heard of a 'solar storm' and I am aware of the 5G implementation. I will not speculate on the cause of the outages today. I am hopeful you can find out what happened and fix it. A Tower Controller reported GPS outage.
Aircraft: CESSNA SINGLE PISTON UNDIFFERENTIATED OR OTHER MODEL
Phase of flight: Taxi
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway; Ground Incursion Taxiway

The occurrence happened taxiing back to the hangar after the flight was finished. We had been flying and had very marginal VFR because of smoke from wildfires. All tower directives were clear and normal as expected; landing was normal and departure from runway was normal. Ground directed me to taxi and hold short XXL approach. The XYL; XXR runway has been closed for several weeks due to construction; which is my normal runway. XYR was the active runway at the time; I cannot give you a reason why; except for maybe being tired from flying in marginal smoky conditions that I just blew through the approach at XXL and held short of the approach at XXR. As I reached that approach I realized I had made a big mistake. I called ground immediately to say what I had done and then called Tower after. I do believe that tiredness from flying in such conditions could have added to the mistake; and in hindsight maybe I should have waited another day before flying. Pilot reported violating taxi clearance and crossing an active runway.
Aircraft: C172
Phase of flight: Climb
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC

While doing touch and go's another Cessna took off on the parallel runway. The tower advised Cessna [call sign] give way to the aircraft that just took off on [the parallel runway]. I did not listen to the instructions for my aircraft call sign was [different]. The Cessna turned crosswind in front of me and it was not until the same Cessna turned downwind that I realized that I might hit that plane. I took evasive action and went behind the aircraft and at the same time I called tower to let them know what was happening. The tower came back to me and told me did I not hear the instructions to follow the plane that I almost hit? My response was 'NO' I never received instructions. After reviewing the voice communications on ATC live I found that in fact we did nothing wrong and the controller was the one that issued instructions to an incorrect aircraft. [This] is a very busy airport and at times there are 5-8 planes in the pattern so I am sure the controller gets very busy. Per 14CFR part 91.3 it is the PIC responsibility of the safety of the flight. I exercised 91.3 to make sure that we did not end up on the local news. A flight instructor reported a near mid-air collision due to miscommunication by ATC. Reportedly the incorrect; but similar; aircraft registration number was used by ATC to issue instructions.
Aircraft: MEDIUM TRANSPORT
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT

On descent into ZZZ below 10;000 feet; I recall ATC last clearing us down to 8;000 feet which is what the altitude alert was set to. I was finishing up the approach checklist as Pilot Monitoring (PM). At 8;000 feet the Check Airman in the right seat told me to push vertical speed so he could keep up with the V PATH. I asked if we were cleared for the approach and he said; 'Yes'. I believed him because of his position and how quick the situation evolved. I should have queried ATC. When we reached 7;300 feet ATC told us to maintain at least 7;800 feet for terrain. We climbed and upon reaching 7;500 feet ATC told us to cross the next fix (can't remember the name) at or above 6;200 feet; cleared approach (RNAV 16). We then recaptured the V PATH and set the altitude alert to the field elevation per FSM and landed safely. ATC didn't say anything further regarding the event. There's a chance we were indeed cleared for the approach and if so; then I missed that radio call.I should have queried ATC regarding our approach clearance. I think the procedure of keeping the altitude alert at the last cleared altitude and only letting the PM adjust it keeps both pilots in check. If the Pilot Flying (PF) wants to descend then he needs the PM to lower the altitude alert first. First Officer reported descending below approach altitude and was advised by ATC to climb and maintain minimum altitude for terrain clearance; which they did and continued the approach to landing.